Jump to content

Great & Rare Quotes About Francis Bacon & The Shakespeare Works


A Phoenix

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Eric,

You are completely right if the directors and actors had a true Baconian understanding of Hamlet it would transform the play in performance.

Yes! It would make it more real, for a start. Has it ever been done, I wonder - a Baconian interpretation of Hamlet? Mark Rylance would have certainly thought much about it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it would reveal even more layers of complexity. I am not aware of a Baconian-like interpretation of Hamlet. I am sure Mark Rylance has probably pondered it once or twice but he now has to walk a very fine line where the controversial authorship question is concerned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, A Phoenix said:

It is remarkable how prominent Baconian-Rosicrucian themes are woven into the fabric of this less known Shakespeare play Measure for Measure one of the unsung great plays in the canon.

Amazing to think that the audiences of the day could understand and keep up with such complex dialogue, layers of meaning, specialised terms, etc. We probably have a harder time of it today than theatre-goers back then.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have often wondered if the audiences of the day were able to decipher and comprehend the more complex themes and dialogues, the subtle allusions, the disguised subtexts, the Great Concealed Truths, especially when we consider that four hundred years later Baconian-Shakespearean scholarship is still bringing to light more and more hidden layers of meaning. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi A Phoenix,

I'm still in the process of digesting the feast of information you kindly served yesterday regarding Canonbury Tower. I notice that you didn't refer to it as the "birthplace" of the Rosicrucian-Freemasonic Brotherhood, because presumably the Order had existed for some years prior, perhaps as early as the 1590s. Please correct me, as I'm only guessing...

The 'Baconiana' article you referred us to is very esoteric and fully displays Peter Dawkins' remarkable ability to interpret arcane symbolism. However, I came across this more historical example of his writing on Canonbury on the FBRT site:

image.png.d7eb91fbadaeb5de72d446b13565e29c.png

https://www.fbrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Canonbury_Place__Tower.pdf

The article ends with a section on the mysterious inscription painted above the door on the sixth level of the tower.

image.png.3809fddd8be4cda99db30b3d0f2f88d0.png

(See recent post for full image)

Interestingly, Peter comes to the same conclusion that G B Rosher reached in his 'Baconiana' article in 1903, that the missing word is not "Francis" and that the first letter is an "E". Rosher proposed "EAMQ" as the obliterated word, as Dawkins explains:

image.png.9c9009476009c31cc6c87e669ad9d843.png

Although I have no expertise in anything, there's something not quite right with this interpretation. I see no visual correspondence between "AMQ" and the letters which have been partially obscured. Also, eam que ("a woman who") is redundant, in as much as Elizabeth is already identified as a woman by her name and as the sister of Mary.

Another curious thing about the inscription is that the last line refers to Charles I as reigning for "a long time". Peter Dawkins claims that the inscription dates from the last year or two of Lord Bacon's life, soon after Charles ascended the throne. How could anyone in 1625 have known that Charles I would retain the monarchy for the next 24 years?

Whether Bacon continued to hold the lease of Canonbury after his impeachment, we do not know, but as he had originally purchased the lease for 40 years, beginning in 1616, it looks as if he might have still held the lease right up to his death on Easter Day, 9 April 1626, after which Lord Coventry took on the lease (in 1627). Interestingly in this respect, shortly after the death of James I in March 1625, and during the first year of Charles 1s reign and last year of Francis Bacons life, an elaborate inscription containing cipher and a Rosicrucian signature was carefully painted on the wall of the highest room in Canonbury Tower, as a kind of record of its use under the aegis of Lord Bacon and as a message for the future. (Dawkins)

Is there an answer to the riddle of the Canonbury Inscription? In the last paragraph of Dawkins essay, he states that the inscription may have once concealed something within the wall, and that it contains a cipher.

image.png.59887fce9229510b2bcca20ce8cd6fab.png

Tantalising to think what may have been removed from its hiding place of the top floor of Canonbury Tower...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Eric Roberts
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember on B'Hive the "F" or "E" concept coming up and seeing this image, but I didn't find it just now. I can look more, but it has come up here I am fairly sure. It is familiar to see for me.

image.png.3809fddd8be4cda99db30b3d0f2f88d0.png

 

I see an "E", and I also see the whatever seems to appear of the scratched out text which is nothing near what was originally done. The font size, spacing, it is out of whack. We are seeing the scratching out of a second of third, or maybe even more versions of whatever was there.

The question is about this specific placement, and why.

Looks like an "E" to me. 4 or 5 letters were once following based on layout, doubtful 6 would fit.

Very curious.

 

Edited by Light-of-Truth
  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thomas Bokenham, "Those Shakespeare Manuscripts", Postscript, 1975  Baconiana No. 175, pp: 28-48

As a whole Bokenham's article is a tour de force of decipherment, a must for all decryption junkies. 🙂  But in the Postscript, he mentions Canonbury Tower as one of several places where Francis concealed evidence of his authorship of the Shakespeare plays for future generations to discover.

image.png.436707b0a470075eb0be9d28cde573db.png

image.png.6c37b10dcf957c1262f5b38c444a42fb.png

Hence, the Oak Island legend. I hope I live to see the day when the missing MSS are finally found.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eric Roberts said:

Hence, the Oak Island legend. I hope I live to see the day when the missing MSS are finally found.

That is the day I hope I am alive to know about. I have dreams of finding that Treasure. Like loose arrowheads in fluffy sand. My reason to live above all other things. 🙂

As far as the "F" and "E", as much as I love a cipher, I am on the page of thinking it is an "E". This article in 1903 holds the ground for me unless something better comes up. That the word was a playground for graffiti artists for centuries is what makes our eyes pierce the Veil! That is the Mystery!

Page 140 and 141 of PDF (another 116, pages 116 and 117!):

https://sirbacon.org/archives/baconiana/1903 Vol. I (Third Series) No 1-4.pdf

116


THE CANONBURY INSCRIPTION.

AS the Baconian cause is not assisted, but the contrary, when fallacious points are offered to the public in support of it, just as a good case is sometimes prejudiced by the support of a witness who proves on cross-examination to be untrustworthy, I venture to think that I am doing a useful service in drawing attention to a mistaken point in Mr. Mallock ’s article in the Pall Mall Magazine for January.

Mr. Mallock states as a fact that a part of the inscription in Canonbury Tower runs : “ Regina Maria Elizabetha Soror : Succedit Fr. . . . Jacobus, ” and puts this forward in support of the theory of Bacon’s belief in his royal birth ; asking what the mutilated word can stand for unless for Francis.


It will be seen, however, by any one who makes a careful inspection of the inscription that the word does not begin with F, but with E, and I can make a suggestion instead of Francis that I think will be considered satisfactory.


By the courtesy of the present occupiers of the Tower, I was permitted to see the inscription on two occasions about ten months ago. As it is inconveniently situated, high up on the wall of a not too well lighted landing, I provided myself with an electric lamp, which I was able, standing on a chair, to hold close to the letters, and I have no hesitation in saying that the first letter of the word is E.


How, then, came Nelson to give it as F, in 1811, in his History of Islington ? I think the explanation is that it was characteristic of the handiwork of the painter of the inscription to make the upper horizontal stroke of his E decidedly stronger and more conspicuous than the lower one, which, besides being thinner than the upper one, is not continuous, and does not join on to the vertical stroke. To the right of the bottom end of the vertical stroke there is first a blank space, then a light horizontal stroke, then another blank space, and then the tick at the end, the tick itself being weaker than the tick to the upper horizontal. It will appear on examination of the painter’s other E’s, that these peculiarities were habitual with him. The result of them is that the E might at first sight be taken for an F, especially in a bad light.


My conjecture, as to what the word really was, is that it was Eamq., q. standing for que, as it does in other parts of the inscription. The few traces that remain of the letters following the E, seem consistent with the word having been Eamq. Substituting Eamq. For Nelson ’s Fr— , and giving the whole inscription, to enable an opinion to be formed as to how Eamq. Suits the general style and tenor of the lines, we have:—


Will. Con. Will. Rufus. Hen. Stephanus.
    Henq. Secundus.
Ri. John. Hen. Tert. Ed. Terni. Riq. Secundus.
Hen. Tres. Ed. Bini. Ri. Ternus. Septimus.
    Henry.
Octavus. Post. Hunc. Edw. Sext. Regina. Maria.
Elizabetha. Soror. Succedit. Eamq. Jacobus.
Subsequitur. Charolus. Qui. Longo. Tempore.
    VlVAT !

 

The sense runs very well— “ Elizabeth her sister follows Mary and James follows her.” Could anything be simpler or more natural ?

G. B. Rosher

 

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Eric,

As you know, there are all kinds of blinds, misdirections and opinions about the true origins of the Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood which would take a long detailed essay or a book to explore and examine some or all of the Truth behind the secrecy, mystery and complex veil of enigmas designed to obscure it. There are however a couple of pieces of evidence about the origins of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood worthy of serious consideration. Firstly, the Rosicrucian apologist Michael Maier stated that the Order was founded in the early 1570s which coincides with the hints provided by Spedding (Letters and Life, I, pp. 4-5) that around the time of FB's tenure at Cambridge (1573-75) he set in motion his plans for what might be described as a Universal Reformation of the Whole World, the title of the pamphlet containing the first Rosicrucian manifesto published at Casell in 1614 publicly anouncing their existence.     

Edited by A Phoenix
  • Wow! 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Eric,

As you know, there are all kinds of blinds, misdirections and opinions about the true origins of the Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood which would take a long detailed essay or a book to explore and examine some or all of the Truth behind the secrecy, mystery and complex veil of enigmas designed to obscure it. There are however a couple of pieces of evidence about the origins of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood worthy of serious consideration. Firstly, the Rosicrucian apologist Michael Maier stated that the Order was founded in the early 1570s which coincides with the hints provided by Spedding (Letters and Life, I, pp. 4-5) that around the time of FB's tenure at Cambridge (1573-75) he set in motion his plans for what might be described as a Universal Reformation of the Whole World, the title of the pamphlet containing the first Rosicrucian manifesto published at Casell in 1614 publicy anouncing their existence.     

I have read (where?) that though still in his early teens, Francis had a life-changing mystical awakening which set the course for the rest of his life. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, A Phoenix said:

Hi Eric,

As you know, there are all kinds of blinds, misdirections and opinions about the true origins of the Rosicrucian-Freemasonry Brotherhood which would take a long detailed essay or a book to explore and examine some or all of the Truth behind the secrecy, mystery and complex veil of enigmas designed to obscure it. There are however a couple of pieces of evidence about the origins of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood worthy of serious consideration. Firstly, the Rosicrucian apologist Michael Maier stated that the Order was founded in the early 1570s which coincides with the hints provided by Spedding (Letters and Life, I, pp. 4-5) that around the time of FB's tenure at Cambridge (1573-75) he set in motion his plans for what might be described as a Universal Reformation of the Whole World, the title of the pamphlet containing the first Rosicrucian manifesto published at Casell in 1614 publicy anouncing their existence.     

Of course I like the 1570's as being the same as the 157's.

Remember Dee's "Mathematical Preface" was in 1570, or 157.

 

 

  • Like 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Remember Dee's "Mathematical Preface" was in 1570, or 157.

I am on the sidelines of the RC world of "things." Bacon and Dee being a connection.

In 1570 Dee made history, describing a triple diversity of "thinges."

All thinges which are, & haue beyng, are found vnder a triple diuersitie generall. For, either, they are demed Supernaturall, Naturall, or, of a third being. Thinges Supernaturall, are immateriall, simple, indiuisible, incorruptible, & vnchangeable. Things Naturall, are materiall, compounded, diuisible, corruptible, and chaungeable. Thinges Supernaturall, are, of the minde onely, comprehended: Things Naturall, of the sense exterior, ar hable to be perceiued. In thinges Naturall, probabilitie and coniecture hath place: But in things Supernaturall, chief demõstration, & most sure Science is to be had. By which properties & comparasons of these two, more easily may be described, the state, condition, nature and property of those thinges, which, we before termed of a third being: which, by a peculier name also, are called Thynges Mathematicall.

We look with understanding on how their reality 400 years ago of science was primitive, and for me I wonder if some of the philosophical/religious interpretations are more similar even after 400 years. But as far as numbers, for the scholars of their day, I believe they knew and understood numbers much more than we as a world do today. We let computers do all the work, or calculators. Youngsters cannot even count back change at a cash register anymore. But who uses cash?

The third concept is no joke, nothing to dismiss because nobody gets it. Bacon took on Science, Shakespeare took on Philosophy, and both contain the third equally important area, "Thynges Mathematicall".

It's not as simple as Bacon's biliteral formula, 1 + 1 = 10 (A + A = B), Dee's statement is that numbers have properties and are a "third" of reality, a "third" of life on Earth, or a third of the Universe, "All thinges".

Do the numbers 157 and 287 matter? Yes! It is because they are the RC (Elizabeth, Bacon, Shakespeare) Seal numbers? No, they are the RC numbers because they matter. Not the other way around.

 

 

Edited by Light-of-Truth
  • Like 1

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

Thanks A.P. My bad. You posted the relevant quote from Spedding for me a few months ago. I'll search it out. 

It is easy for me to accept that in Bacon's pre-teens he was already experiencing mystical experiences changing his life and ultimately 400 years later our lives.

I cannot imagine any other scene. Young Bacon saw Nature and the World from new eyes, blowing away all of humankind's "explanations" prior. He saw the Light very early in his life.

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

It is easy for me to accept that in Bacon's pre-teens he was already experiencing mystical experiences changing his life and ultimately 400 years later our lives.

I cannot imagine any other scene. Young Bacon saw Nature and the World from new eyes, blowing away all of humankind's "explanations" prior. He saw the Light very early in his life.

Hi Rob. I thought you might get a laugh out of this fragment from the Folger's "Elizabethan Court Day by Day" records for January, 1600. It concerns the arrest of a blacksmith in West Sussex for seditiously claiming that Robert Devereux was Elizabeth's son.

His name was Robert Fowler.

image.png.9edf68946cbe2155858d646d03c160a7.png

https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/mediawiki/media/images_pedia_folgerpedia_mw/5/55/ECDbD_1600.pdf

Edited by Eric Roberts
  • Wow! 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eric Roberts said:

Hi Rob. I thought you might get a laugh out of this fragment from the Folger's "Elizabethan Court Day by Day" records for January, 1600. It concerns the arrest of a blacksmith in West Sussex for seditiously claiming that Robert Devereux was Elizabeth's son.

His name was Robert Fowler.

image.png.9edf68946cbe2155858d646d03c160a7.png

https://folgerpedia.folger.edu/mediawiki/media/images_pedia_folgerpedia_mw/5/55/ECDbD_1600.pdf

OMG!

And art made tongue-tied by authority!

It's in my DNA!

  • Haha 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan 1, 1600:

Robert Fowler, of Wisborough Green, blacksmith, said: ‘That the Earl of Essex was the son of the Queen of England. And that the Queen’s Majesty had another son whom men did suppose to be the brother of Mr Walwyn, late Vicar of Wisborough Green’.

This suggests that Robert Fowler of 1600, before Jan 1st., had some knowledge of Elizabeth's kids. Based on the charge, is he saying that Bacon was the brother of Mr Walwyn of Wisborough Green? Who is that? Who was their father??

Google is not giving up any secrets, rare that I get handed a clue and can't find anything! It's like looking into a void. I guess a blacksmith might overhear a thing or two in their profession. But "Mr Walwyn"?

 

  • Like 2

T A A A A A A A A A A A T
157     www.Light-of-Truth.com     287
<-- 1 8 8 1 1
O 1 1 8 8 1 -->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Jan 1, 1600:

Robert Fowler, of Wisborough Green, blacksmith, said: ‘That the Earl of Essex was the son of the Queen of England. And that the Queen’s Majesty had another son whom men did suppose to be the brother of Mr Walwyn, late Vicar of Wisborough Green’.

This suggests that Robert Fowler of 1600, before Jan 1st., had some knowledge of Elizabeth's kids. Based on the charge, is he saying that Bacon was the brother of Mr Walwyn of Wisborough Green? Who is that? Who was their father??

Google is not giving up any secrets, rare that I get handed a clue and can't find anything! It's like looking into a void. I guess a blacksmith might overhear a thing or two in their profession. But "Mr Walwyn"?

 

I couldn't find anything about Rev. Walwyn or Robert Fowler of Wisborough Green, but I did find another Robert Fowler:

image.png.e4b237f30fae05d1b8c1fc18918bacaa.png

https://sites.rootsweb.com/~lunsford/research/crests/fowlercrests.htm

Edited by Eric Roberts
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...